State is not the same thing as government
Poorly.
There would be FAR less terrorism because terrorism is just the violent reaction to injustices perpetrated BY THE STATE by people that feel they’ve been wronged by the state.
That’s not an answer
Fair point!
In the (IMO rare) rare case of a terrorist attack in an anarchist (maybe more like an anarcho-syndicalist) society, it would be handled locally like it was for a thousand years before organized governments were formed.
Likely a volunteer neighborhood watch, then multiple neighborhood watch from different villages would coordinate and eventually they would probably consolidate to make coordination easier, perhaps some kind of salary, oh wait…
"Yay no more tyrannical state, now lets create a system to protect ourselves and…
ah shit, here we go again"
we reinvented the steam engine again eh? We’re crabs?
Neighborhood defense crabs, yes.
Mass murderers would be handled about the same, ie. taken down by local security after the fact.
Terrorism would be less likely to happen; without an organized state to terrorize, what’s the point? There’s no one to agree to the terrorists’ demands.
There probably wouldn’t be a “9/11” but there would be a bunch of angry white dudes just wanting to kill black people for some fucked up reason. dylan roof and the christchurch shooter aren’t gonna go away just because the state goes away
Idk mate, I feel like most anarchists are pretty fucken vocal about how we should deal with fascists. What would happen to them within a stateless society is probably what we say should happen 🤷♀️
And, like now, those acts would mostly be handled by taking out the shooter after the fact.
Hopefully without a centralized for-profit news apparatus making the perpetrator infamous and inspiring copycats, though honestly we could achieve that under the current system of government.
There will be violent gangs that would pop up especially when there is no state. So there is still Terrorism unless I misunderstood the term.
I call myself an Anarchist, but I don’t think there are many reasonable Anarchists who want a society without any government. It’s necessary for the function of protecting people. It shouldn’t be involved in telling people how to live their lives where it doesn’t effect others though, such as laws against drug use or any other lifestyle choices. It should step in to protect people from exploitation and dangers that they don’t choose freely.
To answer your question, it couldn’t. Essentially no one is asking for that though, so it’s not really a useful question.
Isn’t that technically not anarchism? It sounds more like direct democracy with limited government.
Here’s a good page that goes into more detail, but no. Anarchism is not a total lack of government. It’s the removal of hierarchical systems and exploitation (inside and out of the government).
As an anarchist, I answer this just about the same way I answer most questions. Through consensus of those involved, the form that takes is going to be different for each region, community, et cetera. Those that make up society need to have some way of making collective decisions, but it doesn’t need to be a state to achieve that. States are new, governing is not. I favor consensus democracy, but it’s by no means the only method. But questions like this are a double edged sword, they’re vital to explaining left libertarianism, but they’re also proof of how far we have to go before people understand even the basics of it. Stateless does not mean ungoverned, just as anarchism does not mean chaos. It’s simple a governing by the people. If we cannot be trusted to govern ourselves how in the hell do we think this is a tenable system, in which we choose individuals to govern us?
I honestly don’t understand how this works and I want to.
If everyone decides murder is wrong, then some people will have to be the force to investigate and punish those crimes.
Who is accountable for overseeing those using force to ensure they don’t use it for personal gain?
By sponsoring it.
It wouldn’t.
Stateless societies don’t work, that’s why despite thousands of years of recorded history, we don’t have any record of one ever succeeding.
Even just having a village elder who decides disputes is a form of state. Hell, having parents who decide the rules in a family is a form of state.
States didn’t exist until a few thousand years ago. Hundreds of thousands of years of human history never had states.
You don’t need a state to function and reducing the concept of state to encapsulate non-state things (eg. Parenting) is a bit silly.
States did exist, just because it was the strongest man in the tribe declaring the rules arbitrarily didn’t make it not a state.
We co-operated, it was never a case of strongest = leader. That alpha shit is inaccurate.
In wolves it’s fake, in humans it’s quite accurate.
It still exists today so don’t tell me it was never a case of the strongest = leader. Drug cartels are effectively states, and ruled by extreme violence (even internally)
Even if your argument were accurate, that would be considered a state. A group of people agreeing on rules together is a state.
Like I said, with few enough people and it could be considered “not a state” but there isn’t any realistic way to have a stateless society of even tens of thousands of people, let alone the millions and billions of people that exist these days.
No, it is not accurate in humans at all.
Go learn some biology and human history, you are clearly not informed enough to be having opinions here if you’re at the level of thinking alpha is a thing in people.
I mean, if you want a great example, Genghis Khan killed his half brother at 8 years old in order to “secure his family position” then went on to lose a bunch of battles, then win a bunch of wars and murder his way to the top of an empire.
If you don’t think that’s an example of strongest = leader, I don’t know what to tell you.
Modern cartel leaders are very similar in most cases, they’ve schemed, battled, and murdered their way to the top.
That’s true, but in those ages ppl still got speared in the back or ritually sacrificed. So is this more successful than all of todays states in case of murdering and terrorising? I doubt it.
Also, if there are a couple tribes enough distance apart to each be self-sufficient, there is no incentive to even have a state. Government/states only became useful once too many people lived too closely together.
And it’s not like we can go back to tribal self-sufficiency.
By not creating the mass murderers and terrorists in the first place, ideally.
Beyond that, anarchism usually embraces the idea of the broadly armed society and militias.
What murderer? I’m just un-aliving him/her.
My critique of that is that’s how you get tge US in the war of 1812. You don’t want to be the US in the war of 1812.
My critique of your critique is that professional militaries are how you get every other fucking war since then, lol
And 1812, because a British militia wasn’t going to independently invade America. That’s something statists do.
Plus:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812
Seems pretty even to me.
My critique of your critique of my critique is two part. One you’re not wrong. Two it would require everyone everywhere to agree to no professional armies.
I guess it’s three parts because the militia based army of the US is the one that invaded Canada first. They were just really, really bad.
Can I critique someone?
Do it!
PixelPinecone you did a criticism! It sucks but aren’t you adorable? Bless your heart.
You suck ass!!
Did I do it right mom?
You did it! You get a gold star!
I like me some good smelly ass to suck
Especially your mom’s, so yes, you did right
After the British Navy kept enslaving Americans for their war machines!
BONUS MILITIA SUPERIORITY BONUS ROUND:
Numerous militias refused to cross into Canadian territory because while they agreed with the stated goals they thought trying to conquer the territory was wrong and not to their actual benefit.
But you’re right. The citizen militia conceit relies on regular training and broadly popular support, and America was lacking in both. It worked in the classical republics because the society was structured to prioritize it and America was not.
It wouldn’t
How big would said society be
There could be alternative to state with its own police. If alternative to state is some kind of unions/syndicates, it could mean, there are, for example, Team Space (Union of Spaceship Institutions + some relevant Universities and Industry Manufacturers) and Team Earth (Union of Agricultural Manufacturers + Farmers + Union of Solar Energy Organisations) represented in the same city. Each of those have their own police funded by their own taxpayers. There could be many such “teams” in the same city, and they together manage infrastructure and security in the city. I think it’s important that those teams are kind of “omnipresent”, meaning the same team is present in many locations throughout the planet. For example there could be multiple dozens of such teams, and each city on the planet is run by some combination of those teams, which depends on variety of cultural and economic concerns and interests of such teams.
